linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3 0/5] x86, cacheinfo, amd: L3 Cache Index Disable fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100123163223.GA30859@liondog.tnic>
Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:32:23 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, andreas.herrmann3@....com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 0/5] x86, cacheinfo, amd: L3 Cache Index Disable
 fixes

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:01:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 07:59:53AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 01/22/2010 09:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Those patches are also good -stable candidates.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hmmm... I'm not sure I see a strong justification for a late -rc push
> > > > >> into Linus/stable push for for these... I think you would have to
> > > > >> explicitly make the case if you want them to be considered as such.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, on the one hand, they fix real bugs in the L3 cache index disable 
> > > > > code and since they're bugfixes, they are eligible late -rc candidates.
> > > > 
> > > > Bugfixes are *early* -rc candidates.  Regression fixes are *late* -rc 
> > > > candidates, at least that seems to be the policy Linus currently implements.  
> > > > -stable seems to use slightly less strict criteria (the whole point is that 
> > > > -final needs to be a stabilization point, backported fixes/drivers can then 
> > > > come onto a stable base) which is why you seem some patches which are 
> > > > "straight to .1".
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > 
> > Ok, thanks for the clarification - my only trouble was that the current
> > code is b0rked as is and those fixes are needed. However, backporting
> > them at a later point seems much more riskfree and I will do so later.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> Well, if there's a crasher in there, then a minimal fix to address just that 
> is preferred for .33 - and that can be tagged for -stable immediately.

As I said earlier, I don't believe we have machines in the wild to
practically support the feature yet so we should be OK without a fix.
Let me verify that next week and get back to you with a minimal fix in
case we have any affected configurations.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/